Romney was caught in the Rose Garden thorns,Andrew Rosenthal writes in an opinion piece where he compares the Republican candidate's bungled Benghazi response to historic missteps by George H.W Bush and Gerald Ford.

"The exchange left voters in the uncomfortable position of assuming that Mr. Romney either believes his own propaganda or doesn’t care whether what he says is true, which fits into the narrative that he’s willing to twist the truth for political gain," he writes.

"That might have looked menacing and overbearing if Romney hadn’t been so happy—eager, even—to play the predator as well," he says, "The two of them swimming right up to each other, circling each other, seemingly poised to shred some flesh and draw some blood, especially during a dispute toward the end about Obama’s response to the Benghazi attack."

Bruni adds that this debate was remarkable in another regard: both candidates' lack of respect for one another.

"They contradicted, belittled and spoke over each other in a manner more raw than dignified," he writes, saying at times viewers had to remind themselves that one was the president and the other one wanted to be.

Despite the candidates' obvious distain for one another, Bruni concludes that both showed considerable brainpower and firepower.

Obama in particular managed to save his semester grade in the make-up exam with his "liar, liar" line of attack, Bruni concludes

A weary performance last time was replaced by an Obama who was willing to "get in Romney's face and in his space" and call out Romney's lies, he says.

Will it swing undecided voters? he asks, concluding that he believes it will - although not in a fundamental way.

"It will still be a dead heat — but Obama accomplished something of a turnaround tonight," he writes. "He took steps towards undoing the damaging dynamic Romney cemented during the last debate: One in which Romney had assumed the role of the energetic candidate of change, while relegating Obama to the role of listless, passive candidate of the unacceptable status quo — of the “new normal.”

"He homed in on Romney’s perceived vulnerabilities, especially his wealth and lack of a common touch, in a series of dramatic center-stage confrontations between two men who radiated hostility toward each other, Thrush writes.

The commentator also points out that "an often defensive Mitt Romney" battled moderator Candy Crowley nearly as often as he went after Obama.

"To the astonishment of those watching in the spin room, Romney took on Crowley to defend the overseas investments in his blind trust, a subject many GOP analysts hoped would be a no-fly zone for a wealthy candidate trying to convince voters he can empathize with their economic struggles," he says.

Ultimately, however, despite the president giving the stronger performance both writers say the real test will be in the polls over the next few days.

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

Despite Barack Obama's strong performance in the second presidential debate it wasn't a decisive one, Jon Healey writes for The Los Angeles Times.

The debate played out "more like a brutal exchange of punches between heavyweights" Healey says, "ending with both men battered but standing".

Had Romney crumbled in the face of a "newly energized and forceful president" it may have given Obama the edge he needed - but unfortunatley for the Democrats the moderate-sounding Republican came out swinging instead, he adds.

"The central exchanges of the debate played out like a slugfest between two boxers with very different styles but roughly equal strength. Romney attacked Obama's record, especially on the economy; Obama responded by attacking Romney's credibility," he writes.

This, he adds, leaves us where we expected to be at this point: with an extremely close election.